Monday, September 18, 2017

Sanctuary city mayors openly advocating "aiding and abetting" law breakers.

A state going as far as to vote to declare itself as a "sanctuary state."

The question becomes, "when will the country say, "enough is enough?"

Donald Trump rode into the White House on a wave of indignation, mixed with outright anxiety. To those who supported him, he represented a clear, strong voice against "the way that things were." He has faced long odds; grappling with everyone from the mainstream media to leaders in his own party.

Imagine for a moment! How would any President fare with a House Speaker and a Senate Majority leader not in sync with his agenda?

It wouldn't be easy! Ask Richard Nixon! The difference however, was that Nixon faced strong Democrat opposition in both the House and Senate. House Speaker, Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell are Republicans. Both have been accused of "slow walking" the President's agenda. It is probable that if the midterm elections were held this fall and both were on the ballot, neither would return next year.

Donald Trump is a "nimble" operator. Some might describe his as "mercurial." Which translates to "if Republicans can't get it done, he'll turn to the opposition party." Is this wise?

We must remember that Trump's constituency isn't exclusively Republican. In the 2016 election, a forgotten segment of America emerged, sweeping him first into the nomination, later into the White House. National Review called them the "disaffecteds." Two-thirds were independents. 23% were not white. The average household income made $30,000. Practically none of them trusted government.

Building a wall, effectively closing the borders was especially favored by these voters. The Republican Establishment wasn't thrilled! Not only did it come off as "anti-Hispanic," but it slowed the flow of cheap labor. Democrats saw those "border jumpers" as future voters.

The former assumption is simply racist! Most of the eleven million illegals in this country aren't Hispanic. Furthermore, Latin surnamed Americans are proving to be exceptional contributors to our "melting pot." Most favor strong immigration control standards.

The second position is easier to fathom. People who come into the country illegally are often poor, seeking to jump on America's entitlement gravy train. Naturally they would gravitate to a party that favors free health care, free housing, free food, free education and all of the associated "chits and boonies" that accompany Democrat leadership.

Donald Trump simply must accomplish two objectives: Tax Reform and the Wall. If he gets both, he will win a second term.

The failure of Obamacare repeal is another topic for a different post. But, it important to note that the inability of Mitch McConnell to secure the 50th vote, opens up all sorts of options for the President. Including, forging a different deal with the Democrats that might include something for both sides.

The real test may come with how the President handles the sanctuary city question. The hint that he might be willing to acquiesce in the D.A.C.A. question has conservatives like Ann Coulter ready to jump ship!

Don't jump yet! Has everyone read "the art of the deal?" I have.

Donald Trump is engaged in what he does best: negotiate. He knows that the Democrats cannot fail on D.A.C.A.. The President senses that "Chuck and Nancy" will happily "pay a pound of flesh," to bring these "Dreamers" into the American family, legally and permanently. This in itself, creates boundless opportunities!

Starting with, "getting bi-partisan support for his tax reform initiative." Notice how the President is touting "Middle Class and small business" as the primary beneficiaries? It's true!

Under the plan, the greatest benefactors in America would be individuals making between $35,000 per year and $350,000 per year, living in low taxed states. The odds of cutting corporate taxes to 15% are long. To cut them to 20% are excellent. The end result of both would be an unprecedented expansion in America.

"Requiring all new Americans to learn the English language." is favored overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle. Why not make it official; as in an English Language Amendment? Requiring a voter I.D. card with photo would be easy enough to slip in, with stipulation that "only U.S. citizens" would be allowed to vote. Any municipality that proffered legislation to the contrary would be denied federal funding. Congressional representation would be based on "citizens and not persons."

"Aiding and abetting criminals" is supposedly against the law. Nobody is above the law. Even dissenting sanctuary city mayors! To give this assertion "teeth," the President would instruct Attorney General Sessions to issue arrest warrants for these mayors.

The first amendment guarantees free speech in this country. In places like Berkeley, they seemed to have overlooked this American right!

There is also a violent backlash against law enforcement officials in certain cities. Often the instigators are paid by divisive forces determined to create malaise in minority communities.

The President could nip this entire movement in the bud with one brilliant, yet controversial stroke:

"Call for 1,000,000 civilian volunteers to uphold first amendment freedoms while assisting the police maintain order in troubled areas."

"Five times" that many will respond! These five million will not be Sunday soldiers! Expect the majority to be between 18 and 45. They will come with "AR-15's in one hand, 12-gauge pumps in the other hand and nine millimeters tucked in their belts!

As a friend from Alabama phrased. "Ten thousand or so of these folks show up in Berkeley, and the whole business will be over in twenty minutes."

Here is how it would work. American citizens providing their own ordinance would report to their state organizations. They would then be assigned to troubled areas where they would converge to "hermetically seal" them. All ground and air communication would be suspended. Within two weeks, law abiding, America loving residents would happily hand over the criminals to the authorities.

Where there is a problem, there is an opportunity!

For security purposes, if for no other, we need to hunt down agitators who are paying local residents to protest and inflict violence on citizens. GITMO was made for these people! Are you listening, George Soros?

We need a rail line connecting Alaska to the lower 48. It would begin in Anchorage and Fairbanks, join at Tok and turn southeast to Dawson Creek. From there, it's probable that the Canadians would either complete the railroad to the boarder, or allow us to do it. Ideally, this railroad would run the length of Alberta, picking up major cities, Edmonton and Calgary, before entering the U.S. just north of Babb, Montana.

Would "Chuck and Nancy" go for this? And, what about the wall?

The "wall is already being built." Soon it will become secondary in the discussion. At the forefront will be "Chuck and Nancy's" great accomplishment: "Winning Dreamers a path to citizenship." Missing would be the "extended family members of these Dreamers." The deal would specify "no access to entitlements" for ANYONE who was not a citizen or permanent resident alien.

Meanwhile, our President, the master negotiator, would have gotten the following:

*-Tax reform passed
*- The Wall built
*- English officially made the "one and only language for use" in the country
*- Voter I.D.'s with picture required to participate
*- Congressional representation changed to reflect citizens and not persons.
*- Sanctuary cities properly disciplined.
*- Securing a "lifetime labor force" to build a critical rail link from Alaska to the lower 48.

Wouldn't these sanctuary city mayors create "a big time stink?"

They might. But, what is to keep them from landing in a correctional institution for several years? After all, they did break the law... Are we suggesting that they are above the law? They are in a position of leadership. What happened to the axiom, "to more is given, more is expected?"

How about a state that had decided that law originating in Washington did not apply to them? I thought this question had been settled!

No doubt the A.C.L.U. among others, would launch a plethora of law suits. Where these would go is anyone's guess! Had the A.C.L.U. existed during Abraham Lincoln's presidency, the South would have gained her independence! At least under a 2017 mindset. In 1862, Lincoln would have interned those voices, suspending Habeas Corpus in the process!

The Urban Dictionary defines ANTIFA as "middle class champagne socialist/communist/anarchist white boys who don't like nationalists or fascists." Americans past their 80th birthdays and who grew up in Europe will attest to having "seen them before." Their children will openly reminiscence of the ruin and anguish they ultimately brought upon the continent.

This lingering memory alone, courtesy of these children, should result in a call by Democrats for the media to "stand down;" alternatively advancing the notion of "successful bipartisanship at it's zenith."

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Everything seemed to be falling in place. It would begin with a relatively easy victory for Hillary Clinton, probably in conjunction with reclaiming the Senate majority. A new America that included open borders, a single payer health care system and the world's highest corporate taxes, would take shape.

This America would include membership in the Trans Pacific Partnership. It would maintain an influential role in The Paris Climate Accord. And, it would welcome a new leftist Supreme Court member...

In essence, everything was going as planned! The Washington D.C. ruling class would hold onto their protected place, complete with special privileges. The United States would simply be a member of a global community, committed to the whims of the United Nations.

Republican "Globalist Neo-Cons" would splash around, issuing lip service objections. Quietly they would assure their financial backers that a Hillary Presidency "would actually be a safer route." A weakened military would continue fighting endless wars, for the sake of lining the pockets of a few.

The regulations would be increasingly oppressive. Companies would continue their quiet exodus, in search of more favorable business climes. Private citizens would take a more assertive approach to residence abroad. Seniors in search of more safe, affordable locales would bid the land that they cherished "adieu."

A June, 2011 National Review article, called "Dangerous Disaffection," identified a segment of America Donald Trump refers to as "forgotten America." According the NR, they were "two-thirds independents, 77% white, averaged $30,000 income per year, didn't trust government and often didn't vote." Interestingly enough, there were no connections found to the conservative Tea Party movement.

National Review called them "the Disaffecteds" and they made up 20% of the United States population. Donald Trump found them.(Or they found him...) They connected. Hillary Clinton later referred to them as "deplorables." Unfortunately for her, they voted.

Pollsters didn't see it coming! Not because they were dishonest! These voters typically have only cell phones and are not included in surveys. Many who were reached were not forthcoming with their preference when asked. In the end, a lot of people were embarrassed! Even more were completely blindsided!

When the dust cleared, Donald J. Trump was president. As a special bonus, the GOP had managed to hang on to the Senate, further surprising perplexed prognosticators. Suddenly the Republican party controlled the Presidency and both houses!

The Democrats were understandably shattered! To the point that many couldn't accept the election verdict. For months America witnessed a Democrat party in denial. Their ever loyal ally, the mainstream media, was quick to accentuate every conceivable hiccup of the new administration. When a fallacy wasn't found, they simply manufactured one!

Donald Trump is a fighter. To smile and sit quietly while inaccuracies and outright lies were shoveled relentlessly upon him was unthinkable. He retorted vigorously. His supporters vocally applauded. The political class cringed.

Trumps unexpected victory brought new trials. Beginning with a contingent of Republicans who are enraged with both his perception of procedure and irreverence for tradition. Many are in leadership roles.

Trump's "America First," posture presents a quandary for "Establishment" Republicans. Most are "Globalist Neo-Cons." They refer to themselves as "free traders." Yet when Trump refers to "shipping American jobs overseas," he is pointing at their constituents.

To these sorts, Trump is the bawdy outsider, who doesn't respect the rules; doesn't understand how Washington works. Trump's now famous counter punch amounts to "drain the swamp."

Is there an end in sight? For Democrats, there is! It's called "impeachment."

Some Establishment Republicans might secretly be delighted to accommodate their friends across the aisle. Except for one small matter: These "disaffecteds" have been joined by the Christian right.Trump has tapped into another potent force mostly dormant in past times.

Governor Mike Huckabee and others estimated there to be upwards of 90 million Evangelicals in the U.S..In 2012, less than 30% voted. This Last cycle their participation neared 40%.

Both Disaffecteds and Christian Righters are not sympathetic to the status quot. Chances are, they will be the leaders in what Herman Cain calls, "a RINO hunt." This could be bad news for GOP establishment incumbents seeking re-election in 2018 and 2020!

Having corralled "forgotten American and Faith based America," Trump can face his adversaries with more than rhetoric! Any efforts to administrately unseat him would likely lead to civil war.

It amounts to a part of American that is not only willing, but ready to rumble. Decades of being continuously compromised by America's political class have left them in a foul mood. Donald Trump has emerged as their long awaited leader. An ingrained fear of Communism, coupled with a long held mistrust of Washington, have resulted in a potent force, standing ready to mobilize.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

For those who bother to dig, Robert E. Lee was one of America's true heroes!

Amazingly, there are those who continue to equate the War Between the States as a war about slavery. In reality, the argument revolved around an altogether different topic.

Still, when you watch the riots that recently took place in Charlottesville, Virginia and understand that removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee was the center point issue, most ask, "was Lee that offensive? And it so, to who?"

Few know that Robert E. Lee proposed and pushed through adoption of black slaves fighting for the Confederate army. The measure was adopted April 2nd, 1865. The significance of this gesture was simple: "Blacks were seen as Southerners." This action insured future inclusion.

When viewed from this prospective, you can easily place Robert E. Lee along side Martin Luther King, as a prime advocate for the rights of African Americans.

Behind this craze over revisionist history is "political correctness." As referenced in a previous post, "P.C." is "cultural Marxism." It contends that "if you do not agree with me, you are a racist, fascist, bigot, essentially a deplorable." To not oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, on the assumption that Lee was the leader in a racist cause called the "Civil War," is fodder for the weak minded.

The "War Between the States" was not a Civil war. In a true Civil war, the president would have closed the ports. Abraham Lincoln blockaded them. In doing so, he recognized the Southern states as a hostile nation. Thus, if accuracy is one's cup of tea, the conflict must be called for what it was: "The War Between the States."

Why does this matter?

There were more Americans killed in this war than all other wars combined. Sadly the entire conflict could have been avoided; had the will to avoid the war been there. It wasn't! The Northeastern states sought to use the Federal Government to gain advantage over the Southern states. The South simply wanted out.

Over the years, the perception of the war has changed. Rather than reveal the true causes of the war, forces of "Secular, Global Socialism" seek to use it as their "case in point!" If you don't agree that the statues come down, then you are a "racist, fascist, bigot, deplorable or all of the above!"

The question becomes, "where is the line drawn?"

As seen in Charlottesville, Virginians and other Southerners proud of their heritage, took exception to P.C. and it's cultural Marxist position. Expect to see the same in Lexington, Kentucky when Lexington's gay mayor, Jim Gray tries to move the statues of John Hunt Morgan and John Breckinridge from the lawn of the old court house.

Perhaps this preference for revisionist history, symbolized by the statue removals hints at the true divide in America. The nation has not been so divided since 1861. Unlike 1861 however, the divide is ideological, not sectional.

One one side, we have "Judeo-Christian Nationalists." Most supported Donald Trump for the Presidency.

On the other side we have "Secular, Globalist-Socialists." Virtually all supported Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Caught the middle are the "Neo-Cons," who in it for themselves, primarily. They favor the status quot. The last thing they want is an interruption of business as usual.

A conflict of this magnitude would forever change the political landscape. Contemporary political elites and D.C. insiders, now being referred to as "the deep state," would find themselves "instant anachronisms." Time would have simply bypassed them.

For this reason, it would appear likely that Neo-Cons will ultimately find their way into the Trump camp. Most are Globalists, and as much as they may loathe Trump's National Populism, the alternative is less forgiving.

It begins with positioning. When revisionist historians are labeled "Cultural Marxists,"promoting secularism,globalism and Socialism," the battle lines will have been drawn.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Former Connecticut Senator, Christopher Dodd and Massachusetts Congressman, Barney Frank, the authors of Dodd-Frank, described it as "the needed remedy for a financial system gone haywire." Former Clinton Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin and Federal Reserve Chairwoman and Obama appointee, Janet Yellen still contend that it was "necessary regulation."

For small business and Middle Class Americans," it was the "wettest of wet blankets."

The blame is purely bi-partisan! Former Texas Governor and current Energy Secretary, Rick Perry was one of the first to point out the true causes of the 2008, financial meltdown. A Republican Congress worked with President Bill Clinton to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act.

Glass-Steagall prevented traditional banks from doing the riskier work of investment banking, stock market speculation, hedge funds, etc..It was repealed in 1999 under the "Financial Services Modernization Act." For nearly 70 years Glass-Steagall had separated commercial from investment banking.

There continue to be those who remain in denial. They are mostly big bank boosters and Wall Street analysts who still can't believe that that the Act's repeal had anything to do with the Panic of 2008. Yet evidence clearly suggests that it did.

The origin of Glass-Steagall and the motivations behind it's repeal are separate subjects for a different post. But it is important to note the players and how they used the Panic of 2008 to craft legislation that hurt Community Banks, Credit Unions, small business and essentially, the American Middle Class.

Wasn't it Yellen and Rubin's friend, Rahm Emmanuel, who said "don't let a crisis go to waste?" This crisis lined the pockets of the few, to the detriment of the many. That's how wealth transfers work.

Could it have been by design? I have never been big on conspiracy theories. But,"Dodd Frank" introduced the "Volker Rule" which prevented Banks from "propriety trading." In other words, banks could not use their own money for speculative investing.

Sounds slightly Orwellian!

I never was a Paul Volker fan! He will always be remembered as Jimmy Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman. Volker, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Rubin and Janet Yellen have three things in common: The are card carrying members of the "Council of Foreign Relations." They are globalists. They are Democrats.

To stay in denial is easier than admitting the truth. If you continue to repeat a falsehood, people might eventually believe it. To admit mistakes at this level can bring about catastrophic, career ending possibilities. The "safe route" was to "create a smokes screen" that pinned the blame on "the help."

Dodd-Frank wouldn't have happened without the Panic of 2008; and the subsequent Republican meltdown. Until Senator Edward Kennedy's death and Scott Brown's surprising Senate victory, the Democrats held sixty Senate seats. Sadly, Brown's Massachusetts orientation would not allow him to vote against Dodd-Frank.

It sounded marginally creditable, thanks to the endorsement of Wall Street "gurus," ironically responsible for the catastrophe! Especially to those who didn't understand the intricacies of banking and most particularly, mortgage lending. Those who experienced Dodd-Frank first hand, described it as a "regulatory nightmare."

Just imagine...You are attempting to refinance your home. You know that the loan that you took out in 2007 still has twenty years to go before being paid off. Your rate is 6%. Not too bad, but you learn you're eligible for a 3.25% loan that would shortened your term by five years, while reducing payments!

You learn, that the less desirable house across the street just sold for double what you paid for your house in 2007. You assume that you have sufficient equity to, not only pay off $20,000 in credit card debt, but replace your roof.

This is "grassroots American entrepreneurship" at it's best! The homeowner is "taking earned equity to retire non-tax qualified debt, in favor of tax qualified debt, coupled with both home improvement and long term interest savings."

Prior to Dodd-Frank, this would have been a common scenario. Today, it's not so easy, starting with seventy pages of redundant assurances most find more confusing than informative. Upon completion, you make a credit card payment to the lenders "Appraisal Management Company." This costs between "$500-$650," about "twice" the cost of a "Pre-Dodd Frank" appraisal.

Regulators say that the change prevents Mortgage Loan Originators from "coercing" appraisers. The ugly, behind-the-scene rationale amounts to the government doesn't want people using their homes like an ATM machine.

Three Appraisal Management Company members, in three different cities, admitted to witnessing efforts by HUD to promote overly conservative estimations of value. As a Cleveland based, AMC rep remembered, "These guys from HUD came to our office and simply said, "whatever the value, reduce it by 20%."

More than slightly Orwellian!

In 2012 FHA wording hinted that underwriters were encouraged to "look for ways to not approve mortgage loans." No joke! It was actually in the continuing education material, required for S.A.F.E. Mortgage Loan Origination license renewal.

The conventional side is even more rigorous. Rates are typically higher. Underwriting requirements are more strenuous. Qualification for non-owner occupied investment loans; utilized for rental housing, are more restrictive than ever!

Why does this matter?

Those who blundered, ultimately bilked "main street" America for billions, if not trillions of dollars. And mostly benefited! Left holding the bag was "Joe Six-Pack" who merely wanted a mortgage loan; or to buy some rent houses. Not to mention those small business' who were in business to facilitate him!

Those "too big to fail, Wall Street, "Fat cats," will never admit the truth. Their greed lead to the nation's catastrophe. If you haven't seen the movie, "The Big Short," you should. Much comes to light, regarding the Panic of 2008.

To airily blame "non-conforming lending and mortgage brokers" for the meltdown is like "chopping off the tops of weeds."Banks created the loan products! Brokers were their "cheap help;" because they were not required to provide benefits, as they did for their "in house" Loan Originators.

Former Empire Equity CEO, Ezra Behmann explained the rationale. "Straight commission, on collection, salespeople are the least expensive form of labor known to entrepreneurship." These reduced labor costs were passed on to the consumer.

The Appraisal Management companies are seen by industry people as "leaches;" making more than the appraisers for little effort. Appraisers are making less than ten years previously. Many of the best ones have left the industry.

Title companies, another small business adversely impacted by Dodd-Frank, have struggled to stay a float. Many have gone out; because the Brokers who were feeding them, also went out. Consumers seeking smaller loans suddenly had few options.

Closing cost caps dropped to five percent; from eight percent. It sounds good! But, providers(Appraisers, Title Companies, Surveyors, Government, etc.) must be paid from the 5%. Thus, if you are attempting to borrow $50,000, a lender is capped at $2500 for fees. Appraisal, title and government fees, generally account for $1500 to $1800, which are included. Then comes lender and processor fees; anywhere from $1000-1500 additional dollars.

Did anyone expect this result?

Maybe not. It is reminiscent of a farmer who is angered by foxes constantly stealing his chickens. Yet, his retaliatory response is to "butcher his rabbits."

A darker conclusion would entail a plot to eliminate lower end homeowners. Instead of working to facilitate reduced monthly housing costs, poor Americans are told to "turn to government." It is consistent with "encouraging the poor to rely upon AFDC, Section eight housing, food stamps and Medicaid" as long-term sustenance.

Discouraging cash-out refinances, through manipulation of the appraisal system, is contrary to our American Dream! Government should be encouraging independent, entrepreneurial thinking! Dodd-Frank facilitates the opposite.

The big banks complained a bit. But, they could afford the "scores" of staff lawyers necessitated by Dodd-Frank. As Kentucky Sixth District Congressman, Andy Barr pointed out, "there were 1500 Community Banks that went out in 2015, as a result of Dodd-Frank."

Barr, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, reminded that the "Consumer Finance Protection Bureau" is not funded by Congress. It is funded by the Federal Reserve. CFPB was another Obama initiative that conveniently avoided Congress!

Never forget! Those big bank players, such as Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimond benefit from the concept of "too big to fail."

The good news is the Republican remedy, "The Financial Choice Act," passed the house, June 8th of this year. It is now working it's way through the Senate. There is no guarantee that it will bring about all of the necessary changes. But, it does have a chance. Especially if the Senate bi-passes the traditional 60 vote standard, in favor of a more doable 51 majority thresh hold.

Sadly, the poor and uneducated remain in the dark,trusting their politicians. They were told that Dodd-Frank would protect them. What it did was to make them lifelong renters.

What's especially damning with Dodd-Frank is elimination of the Middle Class practice of "playing work-up."

Historically young people would buy starter homes, hold them a few years, then sell them, taking the proceeds to invest in a bigger and better house. Often, their first house was a "fixer upper." The FHA 203k rehabilitation loan was hailed as the greatest "wealth creator" devised. But, the increased FHA paperwork has pretty much ended that!

Under Dodd-Frank, student loan debts in deferment are now counted in debt-to-income ratios. This is especially demoralizing for millennials attempting to buy their first homes.

Monday, July 17, 2017

When we tune into the NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN, you would think that "Russia" is practically the only issue on the American public's mind. Why is that? The mainstream media cannot possibly be that "obtuse!"

In a previous post, the distinct divide in America was unveiled. It isn't merely "liberal versus conservatism." It is certainly not sectionalism. In truth, it is a question of "America first," or "America as an important part of the family of nations." In essence, "Nationalism versus Globalism."

The former sounds harsh; almost threatening. The latter comes off as nice, dare I say, "politically correct."

In his 2000 essay," The Origins of Political Correctness," Bill Lind wrote: "We call it Political Correctness. The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend to think of it as only half serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China indeed around the world. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

"If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly which it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not the the 1960's and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War 1. It we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious."

There are college students across America who are stating their preference for Socialism. Yet, when asked to "define Socialism," they are without words! Was this largely due to their "champion," Bernie Sander's promise of free stuff; because they were entitled to it? In a different era, a Socialist's promise of chits and boonies would have been subject to endless ridicule. Today, not so! The mainstream media, if anything, glamorized Sanders!

Donald Trump, for better or for worse, wasn't as concerned with appeasing the status quot. His proclamation "to Make American Great Again," insinuated that those before him had been focused on the exact opposite. His supporters will tell you that Barack Obama epitomized the idea of "the world first."

Sander's and Obama's positions do have one thing in common: Both are politically correct, according to the modern standards reflected by the mainstream media. The certainly "jive" with the doctrine defined by "secular, global socialism." Trump's "faith based nationalism" is your polar opposite.

Upon this conclusion, it's easy to see why Trump is hated by so many! Nothing wrong with opposing points of view.Members of the media are supposed to be neutral. They aren't. They are on a mission to expand the ideology of secular, global socialism. Opponents are positioned as, in Hillary Clinton's words, "deplorables." The best way to not be thrown into the deplorable bucket is be politically correct.

Bill Bennett, George H.W. Bush's Education Secretary drew the same contrast that I did in a previous post: "That America is more ideologically divided that at any time since 1861." Sadly, this ideological divide is impacting nearly ever issue. Starting with foreign involvement in elections.

The Russians have attempted to influence elections in America for decades. I recall Senator Edward Kennedy holding a meeting with Yuri Andropov's top aid in 1983. The Soviets sought advice from Kennedy on how to deal with Reagan. In return, they offered ideas of how to defeat Reagan in 1984.

It remains a mystery why the mainstream media virtually ignored John Podesta's involvement in Uranium one. Russia donated millions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for 20% of Americas' uranium. Podesta's brother, Tony headed up the Canadian based company. John later ran Hillary Clinton's campaign.

It is also odd that the MSM has barely mentioned that fact that Russia today is experiencing a huge growth in Christianity. Maybe it's due to general disinterest, if not scorn. After all, their "poster boy," Barack Obama ridiculed Christians as people clinging to their "God and guns!" The Soviet Union was officially "atheist."

To say that the mainstream media has a "double standard" would be an understatement! "An arm of the Democrat party" would be more fitting! Or, as Newt Gingrich coined, "reminiscent of Pravda," the official Soviet Newspaper for decades!

Russians have traditionally gravitated to strong, often brutal male leaders. Whether Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Putin, it was always believed that "tolkoi seela moosheena"(only a strong man) was up to the job. Putin came up through the KGB. His family roots can be traced back to the "Oprichnina," which was Ivan the Terrible's secret police in he 17th century.

Putin, like Trump, is a nationalist. Russians see Trump as a strong man. Globalists such Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have noted this distinction.The mainstream Media, then declares "Nationalist" synonymous with "Fascist."

Well intended Neo-Cons such as John McCain and Mitt Romney correctly pointed out Putin's attempts at suppressing Russian media. To hear Putin's explanation, they were part of the "old Communist order" that continue to promote a failed, "dead ended" ideology.

This rationale is flawed, to say the least and it would never be welcomed in America! It does lends insight into Putin's orientation. Globalists would like the American people to believe that Donald Trump harbors similar aspirations. There is zero evidence that would suggest such! Doesn't matter!

Perception becomes reality! When people hear the same rhetoric continuously, real or made up, they tend to believe it!This is the strategy of the mainstream media. It will continue until they fulfill their objective. Or we, as a country, have a reckoning.

In modern times there have been successful efforts to impose sedition. The most notable was the "Sedition Act" of 1918. It forbade disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language against the United States government, the flag or armed forces that would cause others to view the United States with contempt. It was believed that such dialog would discourage the sale of war bonds.

100 years later we have a different kind of war. And, unlike 1918, we have broadcasting. Not to mention cable. Any efforts to subdue would not only be unconstitutional, but go against what we are as Americans. That the mainstream media has gotten to big is unquestioned. Herein may lie the solution? Could we not decentralize it?

This is an advanced media question. Legally? I'm not sure. They broke up "Ma Bell." Most said that it could not be done.

Friday, July 7, 2017

The question remains, "what would be the alternative to a peaceful separation?" Amazingly, a huge segment if not the majority, of the American population, would favor the alternative.

Television illustrates the daily anguish of the losers. Some Americans still can't accept the 2016 Presidential election results. Donald Trump was never taken seriously by the mainstream media. His own party establishment's begrudging acknowledgement did not go unnoticed.

What Trump has exemplified is the real divide in America. It is not sectional. It is ideological. To categorize it as "liberal versus conservative" is one-dimensional. In reality, it's about "America first." Trump's opposition sees America as part of a family of nations.

In essence, "nationalism versus globalism."

Barack Obama held a simple commonality with the Clinton's and the Bushes: All are globalists. They see our world as interconnected. Trump and what turned out to be an electoral majority, said, "charity begins at home."

The mainstream media is unquestionably in the globalist corner. Only natural are their efforts to demean and discredit those who are not.

Most disquieting is the lack of tolerance held by anyone who defied them! Jonah Goldberg's eye opening book, "Liberal Fascism," unveiled this tendency.

Our country is dangerously divided. So divided that Civil War cannot be ruled out! From California's insistence on harboring criminal illegal aliens to the violence and corruption that symbolizes Chicago, it's apparent that some would be fine with an all out conflict; "Mano a Mano" for the "whole Enchilada!"

Better be careful for what you wish for!

This is no joking matter! There are those so incensed over the 2016 election results that they have openly encouraged violence. Others have actually practiced violence, while advocating sedition. That's right! Opponents to their point of view are heckled, ridiculed and in some cases, beaten. Uhm! Sounds like the infamous "brown shirts" of NAZI Germany! Herr Goebels would be proud!

The differences of the two opposing ideologies is most profound! It is "secular global socialism," versus "Christian Nationalism."
It is, "Open versus closed" borders, "American exceptionalism" versus "the world is flat," and "a larger role" versus "a smaller role" for government. "Climate change" is embraced by one side, scoffed by the other. Same holds true to "energy development."

In the end, a clash of perceptions.

In a clash of perceptions, both sides are right, in their own eyes. The last time a clash of perceptions so stark presented itself was in 1861. The side that wins is the one with the most resources and power. Unfortunately resolve by itself won't get it done! The South learned this truism, at great cost!

Which is why those rioters in San Jose and Chicago should be careful! They may be on the verge of awaking a long sleeping dog! As one Alabaman put it, "if 50,000 rednecks with 12 gauge pumps in one hand and AR-15's in the other, were to show up in those places, it would be over in twenty minutes."

Lookout!

The N.R.A. estimated in 2012 there to be approximately 312 million firearms accounted for. It is believe that there are that many, if not more, unaccounted for. They are believed to be in the hands of 30% of the population! We can guess which persuasion the majority of them represent! It is easily imaginable that if Donald Trump called for "one million" volunteers to defend America, he would probably have that number in 48 hours. Armed and ready!

Now, let us pretend that it is Abraham Lincoln and not Donald Trump who is president...

For starters, Chris Cuomo, Rachael Maddow, and two dozen other journalists would be interned. They would be joined by Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Maxine Waters and three dozen other politicians. As was Lincoln's way, Habeas Corpus would be waived!

Trump would not do this, because it is not his way! But, he might have difficulty stemming the long suppressed anger turned joy that would flow from a silent majority that finally said, "no!"

Make no mistake! The left doesn't want this scenario! It would be remembered for the next five-hundred years as the "worst whipping in the history of the world." This is a mathematical certainty. From being satisfied with a peaceful separation, their opponents would quickly demand it all. Because they could take it!

One could expect a massive exodus. Europe and Canada, for those who could afford it. Arkansas sized Uruguay would watch it's population of three million triple in a few months. Even Africa would receive countless applications for immigration.

With the globalists expunged, both from government and media, a new start would be possible. Imagine a constitution missing the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Now imagine adding "English language" and "term limits" amendments.

Foreign policy would be greatly simplified by understanding that this is today, not fifty years ago. We can bring Eastern Europe into the family of civilized nations. We might need to rename N.A.T.O.. "The Coalition for World Peace" has a nice sound to it.

Meanwhile, those who attempted to compromise our great nation in favor of their own selfish agenda, would get their due.

Will it come to this? It might need to! As Thomas Jefferson so gamely phrased, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Friday, June 30, 2017

Last year, I admitted that Hillary Clinton would likely be elected president. It seemed that Donald Trump, while infinitely determined, would be incapable of overcoming odds that were somewhere between "overwhelming and impossible."

Secession seemed the only way to save a part of the country that we love. Wow, has the landscape has changed since my last post!

Not to say that Americans are not talking about the ultimate break-up. They are! In fact, Trump opponents have shown an ugly side to them that is unfathomable. But, as the election showed, they are concentrated in the large urban areas. Many "red staters" believe their numbers were inflated, thanks to voter fraud.

In the October 13th, 2016 post, a new map of North America emerged. Today, nine months and a general election later, it is more clear. The biggest difference is the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota either were carried by Donald Trump, or in the case of the "Gopher state," barely went to Hillary Clinton. Republicans didn't "eek out" Ohio and Iowa. They won those states in landslides. Even Pennsylvania broke for Donald Trump!

So...Let's assume that Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota stay with their lower Midwestern neighbors and Canadian "friends." We now have "Yankeedom with, not 82 million people, but 60 million. We could conclude that Quebec choose to join New York, New England, North Jersey and Puerto Rico in their experiment with Socialism, bringing the t to total population to 68 million. I do believe that "Peoples' Democratic Republic of America," would be a more "catchy" name for this diverse country that would be officially "tri-lingual."

As the original post outlined, "Cascadia," composed of British Columbia, Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon, would number 13 millions and would be the "ultimate Utopia for white liberals."

Which leaves two remaining questions: The first is Chicago.

The "Windy City" is nothing short of a train wreck! As of yesterday, President Trump has decided to send federal help. Which may be the first step toward martial law! Decades of corruption resulting from "one party" rule, has pretty much damned them!

Then, there is California. In the previous three posts, Tim Draper's model of "dividing it into six states" was proffered as a solution. Three of the six would join the "new and improved" United States of America. The remaining three, constituting 23 million souls, would go it alone. Maybe a better strategy would be to (a) "deport all in the country illegally, sans "dreamers," and subsequently make those who remain comply to the new constitution. Which would include the newly adopted "E" amendment.

Let's return to the original distinction between the new Republic and the current one. The 14th, 16th and 17th amendments would be repealed. A new amendment that made English the official language would be added.

Under "E," all voters would be required to pass a fourth grade English proficiency examination, as a pre-requisite for a voter I.D. card.With no 14th amendment, there would be no Phyler v. Doe. In essence, illegals would be unable to drive, vote or tap into the entitlements. With no 17th amendment, Senators would be elected by their individual state Senates.

These measures would allow California to be "saved from itself." Chicago? Perhaps instigation of a measure relieving many of their residents from what they consider, a "lousy lot in life!" The program would be called, "Operation Homecoming."

"Operation Homecoming" would guarantee any resident in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, or any place in America, able to prove that their ancestors were adducted by force from their native lands, "compensation." The federal government would offer $25,000 cash, boat passage and administrative assistance to these persons, in an effort to make amends for previous wrongs.

There would be no alternative proposition. Participants would board climate controlled buses to New Orleans, where they would be given international transportation vouchers, processing assistance and,of course, their cash; in "tens and twenties" if they so chose!

No matter how great we think out nation to be, there are those who simply don't want to be here! Let us give them their wish.

Thus California would remain intact. But, they would be "six as opposed to one." With almost certainly, less voters.

Finally, attention turns to South Jersey, New Castle County Delaware, "what's left of Maryland" and Washington, D.C.. This will be discussed in Part V.